RealGM 2020 Top 100 Project: #1 (LeBron James)

[PistolPeteJR]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

Russell's teams in 1965-69 were not outlier in terms of supporting cast at all. In some years, they were not even the best in the league talent-wise.

I hope that you use the same argument against Jordan.

Agreed - Wilt's teams on the 76er and Lakers were at least equally talented as the Celtics. Russell gets the teammate edge when Wilt was on the Warriors, but the rosters of the Sixers match up, and you can't call West/Baylor/Wilt less talented than the Celtics.

Agree on this.
I wasn't arguing that Russell had a significant talent/coaching edge every single year, but for the majority of his chips, I think that argument is pretty easily made.

I'm open to being refuted on this by some of you veterans.

[70sFan]

I think that Russell had clearly the best supporting cast in the league in 1957-61. With West improvement, Cousy getting older and losing Sharman, I think that 1962 and 1963 Lakers shortened the gap, but the difference in depth was still probably enough. By 1964, Royals became a threat with Lucas, Hawks were also very talented.

By 1966, I don't think you can say that Russell had the most talent around him anymore. 1966 Lakers was legit talented team, Sixers were already there, Royals were as strong as ever. In 1967-68, Sixers were clearly more talented, but to give them justice - Philly had huge problems with injuries in 1968. Warriors in 1967 and Lakers in 1968 were also very talented teams BTW.

In 1969, I don't think Celtics were even in conversation for the most talented team. Knicks were the most talented in my opinion and Lakers had more firepower.

[Jordan Syndrome]

Let me compare the 3 players I list as GOAT.

PEAK
'91 Jordan
'12 Lebron
-72 Kareem

Code: Select all

                           OBPM    DBPM    PER      TS%       WS48
LG Avg                     7.415   5.379   28.365   0.618    0.269
Standard Deviation         4.046   5.577   1.058    48.510   111.384
PT Value                   30      30      30       30       30

LG Avg = All-Time leader's league average for reach respective statistical category.
Standard Deviation = Avg player standard
PT Value = Each statistical category assigns a 30PTS as maximum.

RoundPlay Coef
1st Round = 1.6 Conf Final = 1.2
2nd Round = 1.4 Final = 1


my formula ...
REG play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((GamePlay Coef))

POS play score = ((Player PER x PERLgAvg)+(PLayer TS x TSLgAvg)+(Player WS48 x WS48LgAvg )+(Player OBPM x OBPMLgAvg)+(Player DBPM x DBPMLgAvg))/((RoundPlay Coef))

PEAK value = AVG (REG + POS)

'91 Jordan Peak
REG = ((31.6*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.321*WS48LgAvg )+(8.9*OBPMLgAvg)+(1.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
= 144.569
POS = ((32*PERLgAvg)+(0.6*TSLgAvg)+(0.333*WS48LgAvg )+(10.8*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=160.465

Jordan Peak: 152.517

Lebron '12
REG = ((30.7*PERLgAvg)+(0.605*TSLgAvg)+(0.298*WS48LgAvg )+(8.2*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.7*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=143.243
POS =((30.3*PERLgAvg)+(0.576*TSLgAvg)+(0.284*WS48LgAvg )+(8.1*OBPMLgAvg)+(2.5*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.334

Lebron Peak: 140.788

Kareem '77
REG = ((27.8*PERLgAvg)+(0.608*TSLgAvg)+(0.283*WS48LgAvg )+(7.7*OBPMLgAvg)+(3*DBPMLgAvg))/(1)
=138.301
POS=((32.4*PERLgAvg)+(0.646*TSLgAvg)+(0.332*WS48LgAvg )+(11*OBPMLgAvg)+(3.8*DBPMLgAvg))/(1.4)
=120.200

Kareem Peak: 129.250

------------------------------------------------------

7-years PRIME

Lebron James 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
REG = (AVERAGE(29.1,31.7,31.1,27.3,30.7,31.6,29.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.568,0.591,0.604,0.594,0.605,0.64,0.649)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.242,0.318,0.299,0.244,0.298,0.322,0.264)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9,9.4,9.7,6.5,8.3,9.2,8)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.6,3.6,2.8,2.1,2.7,2.4,0.9)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=141.285

Lebron's PRIME SCORE: =141.285

Michael Jordan 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 96
REG = (AVERAGE(31.7,31.1,31.2,31.6,27.7,29.7,29.4)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.614,0.606,0.605,0.579,0.564,0.582)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.308,0.292,0.285,0.321,0.274,0.27,0.317)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(9.8,9.8,9.7,8.9,6.9,8.3,7.2)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(2.3,2.7,0.8,1.8,1.7,1.2,1.4)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=138.267

Jordan PRIME SCORE: 138.267


Kareem Abdul Jabbar 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80
REG=(AVERAGE(29.9,28.5,24.4,27.2,27.8,25.5,25.3)*PERLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.603,0.58,0.564,0.567,0.608,0.612,0.639)*TSLgAvg+AVERAGE(0.34,0.322,0.25,0.242,0.283,0.219,0.227)*WS48LgAvg+AVERAGE(OBPMLgAvg,OBPMLgAvg,4.9,6.2,7.7,3.9,4)*OBPMLgAvg+AVERAGE(DBPMLgAvg,DBPMLgAvg,3.6,4,3,3.9,2.7)*DBPMLgAvg)/(1)
=130.075

Kareem PRIME SCORE: 130.075

Jordan's Peak + Jordan's Prime
= 152.517 + 138.267
=290.784

Lebron's Peak + Lebron's Prime
=140.788 + 141.285
=282.073

Kareem's Peak + Kareem's Prime
=129.250 + 130.075
=259.325

Why are LeBron 2015-2018 not considered his prime? Why would you favor a 7-year prime over 10-year prime?

Many people have Lebron's peak as 2016 or 2017, ignoring those years in a GOAT comparison is extremely flawed.

Why would you not include 10 years for Jordan? Jordan has 10 fantastic years, the best 10 year prime ever. Shortening your analysis to 7-years is doing a disservice to assessing these brilliant careers.

Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.

Our goal or your goal? I feel like we are doing a disservice to a player when you focus on 7-years when they have a brilliant 10, 11 or 12 years.

The fact is, eliminating playera due to not having 10 years or however many years due to injury simply means they shouldn't be up for comparison yet. Im in the camp of comparing the prime of Duncan (say 12 years) to the prime of Jordan (say 10 years) and then giving Duncan an noted edge in terms of prime impact due to length of prime. Ultimately, those 12 years may not overcome the level of Jordans 10, but Duncan is getting a large benefit here because of his longer, sustained prime.

Typically I value 7-years Prime x Peak x Accolades x Longevity. Lebron's prime is already passing, although his decline is very slow. Right now he is playing to collect accolades and longevity value score, as opposed to proving his level of dominance.

How do you account for longevity? Do you value the longevity of 3 Jordan seasons (7-year prime + 3 more great seasons, prime level to be exact) the same as Duncans 5 seasons (7- year prime + 5 more great years, plus an additional 3 which were impactful)?

My question, I suppose, is how do you account for longevity of legitimate, all-time great seasons like LeBron 2020 and Jordan 1997? I don't see how those years should be weighted less than their other 7-prime years, for example.

[DQuinn1575]

Why are LeBron 2015-2018 not considered his prime? Why would you favor a 7-year prime over 10-year prime?

Many people have Lebron's peak as 2016 or 2017, ignoring those years in a GOAT comparison is extremely flawed.

Why would you not include 10 years for Jordan? Jordan has 10 fantastic years, the best 10 year prime ever. Shortening your analysis to 7-years is doing a disservice to assessing these brilliant careers.

Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.

Our goal or your goal? I feel like we are doing a disservice to a player when you focus on 7-years when they have a brilliant 10, 11 or 12 years.

The fact is, eliminating playera due to not having 10 years or however many years due to injury simply means they shouldn't be up for comparison yet. Im in the camp of comparing the prime of Duncan (say 12 years) to the prime of Jordan (say 10 years) and then giving Duncan an noted edge in terms of prime impact due to length of prime. Ultimately, those 12 years may not overcome the level of Jordans 10, but Duncan is getting a large benefit here because of his longer, sustained prime.

[quote]

Well different people's goals. If you are all-knowing and can draft, do you pick Player A who is great for 13 years, or a lesser player like Player B but think - oy he is going to give me 6 seasons out there starting in 2034 when A retires? So A gives me x more champions in the first 13, but B is going to be playing in 14 years plus and will give me a title in 14 years?
A few (hopefull good) reasons NOT to:

1. The fans or the team can't count on Player B being on the franchise for 15 years. When you are determining who to draft or sign, you aren't thinking how good someone will be in 15 years. I dont think Nets, Clippers. Lakers looked out 15 years when signing KD,Kawhi, LeBron, nor did Dallas look out 15 years when drafting Doncic.

2. Personally, I am determining how good someone is - and someone's 10th or 11th best season doesnt make me want to say Player B was better than A because of his 10th season. That's personal opinion obviously.

3. If you judge all-time greats by championships, then only one player was the best player on more than 6 teams, so 7 might be a good number. I "time adjust" Russell's 11 down some due to talent pool limitations, due to lack of integration, and reduced foreign participation, so 7 might be that number. A new thought for me on this one.

4. Kind of penalizing Oscar, Wilt on the front end as they didnt have the opportunity to come out of high school, so LeBron/Kobe get 4 extra years due to the era. On the back-end, due to $ players play longer than maybe Russell or Mikan played. For millions a year they may have played more. I'm trying to compare a player within his era, and in Russell's era 13 years was a long career. I dont want to penalize him in comparison to LeBron or Duncan.

[Owly]

Our goal here is to evaluate the impact and their dominance within a set time frame. 5-years prime is too short, 10-years prime is too long as it will eliminate many players due to shortening careers because of injury. So a 7-yrs prime is the breakpoint of my evaluation for their impact on the game.

Our goal or your goal? I feel like we are doing a disservice to a player when you focus on 7-years when they have a brilliant 10, 11 or 12 years.

The fact is, eliminating playera due to not having 10 years or however many years due to injury simply means they shouldn't be up for comparison yet. Im in the camp of comparing the prime of Duncan (say 12 years) to the prime of Jordan (say 10 years) and then giving Duncan an noted edge in terms of prime impact due to length of prime. Ultimately, those 12 years may not overcome the level of Jordans 10, but Duncan is getting a large benefit here because of his longer, sustained prime.

Well different people's goals. If you are all-knowing and can draft, do you pick Player A who is great for 13 years, or a lesser player like Player B but think - oy he is going to give me 6 seasons out there starting in 2034 when A retires? So A gives me x more champions in the first 13, but B is going to be playing in 14 years plus and will give me a title in 14 years?
A few (hopefull good) reasons NOT to:

1. The fans or the team can't count on Player B being on the franchise for 15 years. When you are determining who to draft or sign, you aren't thinking how good someone will be in 15 years. I dont think Nets, Clippers. Lakers looked out 15 years when signing KD,Kawhi, LeBron, nor did Dallas look out 15 years when drafting Doncic.

2. Personally, I am determining how good someone is - and someone's 10th or 11th best season doesnt make me want to say Player B was better than A because of his 10th season. That's personal opinion obviously.

3. If you judge all-time greats by championships, then only one player was the best player on more than 6 teams, so 7 might be a good number. I "time adjust" Russell's 11 down some due to talent pool limitations, due to lack of integration, and reduced foreign participation, so 7 might be that number. A new thought for me on this one.

4. Kind of penalizing Oscar, Wilt on the front end as they didnt have the opportunity to come out of high school, so LeBron/Kobe get 4 extra years due to the era. On the back-end, due to $ players play longer than maybe Russell or Mikan played. For millions a year they may have played more. I'm trying to compare a player within his era, and in Russell's era 13 years was a long career. I dont want to penalize him in comparison to LeBron or Duncan.

1) Most of the NBA history isn't now. For a long time players were locked to their clubs. Then they weren't but there wasn't a player max or a contract length max. If you were well run you pretty much could guarantee your star stayed for the length of their career if you wanted them.

2) Is personal taste. But logically if 10th best season is (... using box composites for the sake of simplicity 27.3 PER [LBJ], 25.8 [MJ], 24.8 PER [Karl Malone], 22.9 [Nowitzki], 22.1 [Stockton], 25.3 [Kareem], 24.4 [Duncan] ... I can't see why that would be off the table. I also disagree with the framing. They aren't better "because of" their tenth season. A player could be a greater player with a greater career because their full career is better. If your career is at a Buck Williams level (this is mean but just talking versus elites here), year 10 doesn't raise you much because you aren't moving the needle much (and you weren't close in the first place ... it's not year 10, it's the total). But if you keep providing longevity of quality why ignore it.

3) Even if I really followed/agreed with the logic ... Russell did play in his era and his teams did win those titles. I don't get the idea that somehow even if you value the titles less than means, okay well lets ignore these years (in which he is the best player on a champ, which is what you've chosen to care about here).

4) Leaving aside how handsomely paid Russell was (I don't think that was why he stopped) ... this is a case for a more generous interpretation of older players (a multiplier to any formula, something specifically solving this problem). Cutting all careers off at 7 years is a blunt tool (arbitrary year number, chopping out relevant data) used bluntly (isn't applied only to the specific situation to even things out for older player but indiscriminately on all, creating bigger problems).

[Doctor MJ]

I can’t swallow Russell at #1 not because I don’t think he adds tremendous value or isn’t a leader or anything like that, but because relative to era, he had the best supporting cast, and I don’t believe that was really ever consistently close vs the competition. I’m definitely open to discussion on that note.

In 50s and early 60s yes but I would argue Wilt had better teammates from 66-69. But Celtics probably overperformed winning 3 titles in that range as well considering they were by thinnest of margins.

You could also convince me that even in late 50s and early 60s there were seasons where Baylor/West (whoever you think is better) and Pettit had as good supporting casts. Beating a team with 2 superstars in Baylor and West in 62 is not easy and after the HOF project I have gained respect for Rudy LaRusso as legit 3rd all star guy. Pettit's teammates when they had their rivalry with the Celtics looks pretty good to me. He has the 2nd star in Hagan, other HOF guys in Slater Martin and Ed Macauley wrapping it up but still being effective, and later Clyde Lovelette, also HOF. Not sure playing with Cousy, Sharman, Ramsay, Heinsohn, etc. is much of a leg up there.

I absolutely don't want to belittle those guys, so thanks for that.
In addition, however, I would argue that Russell and those Celtics benefited from top-tier coaching in comparison to the competition (again, not belittling the competition's coaching). And yes, Russell does deserve credit for a being an incredible leader both on and off the court, including as a player-coach.

I would point out Wilt had Alex Hannum.

Hannum was the guy who looked at the volume scoring Wilt system Philly had in '66 and transformed it so that Wilt would focus on playmaking for others instead of scoring. Boom. Team offense goes from mediocre to the best in history to that time.

I can't emphasize enough how impressive I find this. I consider it to be by far the most noteworthy single year coaching performance in the history of basketball. Can you imagine what we'd think of Hannum today if the move had backfired. "What kind of idiot takes the best scorer in history and tells him not to score?". He knew this, he made the change anyway because he saw a problem with how the team played when it was built around Wilt scoring. He saw Wilt make bad decisions, and he saw Wilt's teammates look bad because of the passivity induced by the Wilt focus. He made the change and it changed everything.

It's worth noting that Hannum had coached Wilt before on the Warriors. The result was the best overall performance in Wilt's history to that time with a focus on defense, which was good because big man defense was actually the killer edge for the era and Wilt didn't always take it seriously.

How did things end with Hannum the first time? Wilt went from the Warriors to the 76ers. Hannum was still the coach on the Warriors. Hence, the answer to the question of how Wilt finally got access to an amazing coach in his 8th year as a player is that he had already been playing with him since his 5th year.

And the answer to why he wasn't able to keep playing with Hannum is that he chose to leave. Hannum's 76ers would continue to be excellent without Wilt, then Hannum would go to the ABA and immediately coach a team to a championship. Oh and by the way, Hannum had coached St. Louis to a championship before then.

So you see, the dominant coach of Wilt's '60s career was one of the 2 great coaches of the era along with Red.

What happened when Wilt went to LA? He was going to a team that had just recorded the best offense in history (above the '67 76ers) based around a Princeton scheme. They did this despite West having injury issues and missing a good chunk of the season, and having the offense only be great when West was able to lead the offense.

And Wilt came in and got into a pissing match with this coach because he didn't want to play the role the coach asked him to play. That coach (van Breda Kolff) soon enough gets fired and gets remembered as the joke that Hannum would have been seen as had his plan backfired. But the coach was right, Wilt was wrong, and the team wouldn't win a championship until a couple years later when a new coach came in (Bill Sharman) and Wilt agreed to play more like how van Breda Kolff wanted him to play.

While it's absolutely true that Wilt began his career with weaker coaches than Russell, just as its true he began his career with a weaker supporting cast than Russell, we got to see quite clearly what would happen if this disadvantage got neutralized. The result was not dynasties, and that's really not a coincidence.

As I've said before, Wilt saw himself as bigger than the NBA and bigger than the game of basketball and he wasn't actually wrong. If we make a GOAT athlete-as-actor list Wilt would score way higher than Russell. But we're on a basketball board, and Russell was the one who was focused on maximizing his basketball career, year in and year out.

[Baski]

Tried to read through the whole thread before voting but I see that'll take too long. A lot of great submissions so far. Here's my vote:

1. Michael Jordan
GOAT tier athlete, GOAT tier Peak, GOAT tier Prime, GOAT tier stats, one of the most decorated players ever, one of the few players to have a legitimate claim as the best in the world for at least a decade, accolades:
5x MVP
6x NBA Champ
6x FMVP
10x Scoring Champ

etc. etc. etc. Truth is pretty much everything about my case has been said already. Jordan is probably the easiest player to make a GOAT case for. I'll just touch on some things I find remarkable that others may not have said already:

1.He's right at or near the top in almost every single available advanced stat along with LeBron. This is freaky to me because you would expect the GOAT of the most modern generation to dominate those alone (As Lebron has), because past generations didn't play as optimal basketball as is played today. But Jordan still stood head and shoulders above his peers. He was playing damn near perfect basketball even in an era where basketball was far from perfect.

2. There are probably only about 5 players that we can say absolutely squeezed the most out of their God-given athleticism, and I put Jordan (with LeBron not far behind) at the top of that list

3. Definitely already been said, but he consistently got better from RS to PS to Finals, like clockwork. There's a lot to be said for being such a highly reliable player for ~11 years. In today's game we see that in LeBron's teams being perennial championship contenders. Cannot be understated how rarely that actually happens. The next best approximation in the current era is the Warriors' 5-year run, and even that involved KD joining them and ended with a near simultaneous implosion from all the built-up fatigue.

4. EDIT: Clyde Frazier's post below brought to my attention that Jordan was more of an ironman than LeBron James. Let that sink in. He simply did not miss games if he could help it, despite having built up enough clout over the years to do so without criticism. Insane


2. Lebron James

I'd rather give my case for LeBron in the # 2 thread, considering it would just be repeated here. The gist is that this man about as good as Michael Jordan in totality, and with slightly different circumstances ends up just as successful. The separation is in the mental strength MJ showed on court that easily surpasses Lebron's on average. Lebron has reached that peak multiple times over the years, but MJ was right there from day 1.

3. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Case to be made in #3 thread

[trex_8063]

delete

[Clyde Frazier]

Vote 1 - Michael Jordan
Vote 2 - Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Vote 3 - LeBron James

As more and more seasons pass and the game evolves, it makes sense that Jordan’s assumed status as GOAT would be tested. I'm sticking with him here, but the decision between Kareem and LeBron for #2 has become tougher.

Jordan came into the league and had an immediate impact both statistically and team improvement: 28.2 PPG, 6.5 RPG, 5.9 APG, 2.4 SPG, .8 BPG, 59.2% TS, 118 ORTG, .213 WS/48, 27 wins to 38, 23rd in SRS to 14th. Few players produce at an all NBA level right out of the gate, so you knew you had something special in jordan.

The things that stuck out with jordan early in his career was the speed in the open floor, amazing body control in the lane, and of course his overall elite athleticism. However, even at a young age he seemed in control of that skill and continued to hone it with an inside out game, always keeping the defense on their toes.

Taking a look at jordan’s deep playoff runs pre-championship, it was really his teammates who didn’t provide enough support to get over the hump against the pistons.

ECF vs. DET in 89 (6 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1989-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

ECF vs. DET in 90 (7 games): http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1990-nba-eastern-conference-finals-bulls-vs-pistons.html

Jordan was excellent in both series as the main focal point of the defense. As we look at Jordan’s first 3 title runs, he faced formidable opponents in all 3 series, where the lakers, blazers and suns ranked 3rd, 2nd and 3rd in SRS respectively. Jordan continued his elite production (taking it to another level). Be it a great look off penetration to a shooter, a key defensive stop, or a bucket when you needed it most, he had the entire package.

91 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1991-nba-finals-lakers-vs-bulls.html

92 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1992-nba-finals-trail-blazers-vs-bulls.html

93 Finals: http://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1993-nba-finals-bulls-vs-suns.html

Of course, this coincided with his teammates stepping up as well, which is what a superstar ultimately needs to win a championship in this league, even if they’re doing the bulk of the scoring.

With the jordan vs lebron debate reignited over the last few weeks, I'm seeing people claim that we don't acknowledge jordan losing to the magic in 95 in his comeback season. Of course we can acknowledge it, under the context that it'd be more significant if he had played a full season instead of 17 games after not playing for over a season. Pointing to him putting up some gaudy numbers here and there in that period doesn't change that.

I do think the fact that he returned to form and even changed his game to still be effective as he aged was rather impressive. The second 3 peat had to take a toll on his body, playing in all 82 games each of those 3 seasons at 38.1 MPG, increasing to 41.5 MPG in the playoffs. While his efficiency dipped somewhat vs. his 1st 3 peat, his overall production was still stellar.

[trex_8063]

Aside from scanning for votes, I don't think I've had a chance to read more than maybe 25% of this thread. Looks like there's some really good stuff I hope to get to eventually, and there are one or two post [pertaining to players still on the table] that I intend to respond to in subsequent threads.

I expected this one to be a "peppery" debate, but everyone's largely behaved; so I sincerely thank you all for that.

Anyway......this one has been open 48 hours, so I'm gonna tally things and move on (though feel free to continue any discussions here).

Thru post #309 (edited AGAIN [seriously guys, leaving it right to the wire aren't we?]):

Lebron James - 18 (Ainosterhaspie, ardee, bidofo, Blackmill, Dr Positivity, eminence, freethedevil, Jaivl, Joao Saraiva, Jordan Syndrome, LA Bird, lebron3-14-3, limbo, Matzer, PistolPeteJR, trex_8063, TrueLAfan, Whopper_Sr)
Michael Jordan - 14 (2klegend, 876Stephen, 90sAllDecade, Baski, Clyde Frazier DQuinn1575, Dutchball97, Eddy_JukeZ, Gregoire, Hornet Mania, O_6, RSCD3_, SeniorWalker, SHAQ32)
Bill Russell - 3 (drza, penbeast0, Texas Chuck)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar - 1 (Odinn21)
Wilt Chamberlain - 1 (ZeppelinPage)


37 total votes cast; a player would need at least 19 to have a majority of the vote. No one quite has that, so we'll eliminate the lowest vote getters and transfer 2nd-choice picks: one vote is added to Jordan, one vote added to Lebron, making the new totals:

Lebron - 19
Jordan - 15
Russell - 3

Lebron now has a majority (and fwiw, if we eliminated Russell, all three of his supporters had Lebron as their second choice, so it's a pretty secure victory). Somewhat a surprise result to me, though not too much.

Will have #2 thread up in a moment.....

[Owly]

And the answer to why he wasn't able to keep playing with Hannum is that he chose to leave. Hannum's 76ers would continue to be excellent without Wilt.

I believe this is incorrect.

The coaching position was perhaps in doubt around the time was making his decision regarding leaving. Cherry's Wilt autobiog has the timeline thus.

Hannum announces he's won't return, that going to live on the west coast where his daughters, home and business were [edit:inserted a comma here, 3 items in the list, not two].
Then via Ramsey it's said the Wilt as coach with Ramsey as X's and O's guy was mooted but then Wilt's head was turned.

Wilt has suggested a rivalry between Hannum and Ramsey (each wanting the other's job? Certainly Ramsey wanting to coach?). I also have the idea that Wilt wanted to coach, might have been okay with Hannum, didn't want Ramsey, but that's not something I can cite right now and may be interpretation ... okay not perfect on the details but Libby's Wilt biog Goliath has it thus

Hannum was unhappy, too. He was no longer satisfied to just coach. He wanted to manage, too, but the 76ers had a manager, Ramsay. Hannum said that when he signed he had "an agreement that Kosloff would consider my nominee for general manager ... A few weeks later Kosloff told some friends of mine,'Well, I didn't have a coach and now I have two.' Translated that meant he had signed Jack Ramsay. I was furious."
Entering his second season Hannum apparently had determined he could not continue beyond it with Ramsey. He later insisted, "I found Jack to be a fine person and a fine general manager." Ramsay has said, "We got along just fine. I just wanted to keep winning."
But Wilt had said, "Alex had little respect for Ramsay. During the final weeks of the season, Alex was spending as much time looking for another coaching job as he was working with the 76ers. You could see he was distracted and not concentrating - and he later admitted as much to me.
Wilt adds, "It was pretty clear to me that Ramsay wanted to be head coch and general manager. It was pretty clear that one of the first things he wanted to do was get rid of me."
Jack Kiser says, "Hannum wanted Ramsey's job and Ramsey wanted Hannum's job. Wilt wanted the coaching job, too, but Ramsay didn't want Wilt. Ramsay has to be the star on Ramsey's teams.

Kiseda also offers that Ramsay did want to coach and didn't want Wilt (and confirms Hannum was off the table, citing unwell wife, marital problems).

In any case it would be Ramsay's 76ers, not Hannum's that would play (well) in '69.

[O_6]

Remember, I didn't just pick LeBron and Kobe because they were the most popular names. It just so happened that they were the two most prolific scorers in Clutch situations over the past 24 years, both in terms of overall Points scored and Points scored per minute played. Points per 36 of 32.7 and 32.3, for the two best clutch playoff scorers of a generation. 45.8 for MJ. I think the difference might be more meaningful if we just look at it per minute.

Career (Playoffs)
1. Jordan --- 1.27 Clutch Points per Minute (.625 TS%)
2. Kobe ----- 0.91 Clutch Points per Minute (.544 TS%)
3. LeBron -- 0.90 Clutch Points per Minute (.545 TS%)

I think this is missing so much context. We all know if there's a wide open shooter that LeBron will likely pass the ball unless he has a good look at the rim. For reference, a very good shooter like Duncan Robinson or Ray Allen shoots nearly 50% (75% TS) from the corners. I would expect LeBron to score less per minute because I expect him to pass more per minute. So I don't know if per minute scoring tells us much. And then there's the many problems associated with "clutch stats". With such small samples, the defense surely has a huge effect, so we need to somehow rescale the values accordingly. Maybe that would favor MJ, or perhaps it would favor LeBron, the point is I find it really hard to take these stats at face value.

The clutch scoring stats weren't meant to be the be-all end-all, they were just a glimpse of their overall games in situations where individual scoring becomes more important. And yes, LeBron is a better passer than MJ but I do feel as if people underrate MJ's ability as a passer. Or atleast MJ's ability to take advantage of his scoring, by making the right pass when the defense is overly focused on him. The Archangel stretch where MJ played PG and averaged 10+ APG, the NBA Finals in '91 where MJ averaged 11+ APG in the Finals; MJ may not be on LeBron's level as a distributor or floor general but he was clearly a very capable passer.

However, assists gets much harder to come by in these high leverage late game situations. In terms of Clutch Playoffs stats; only Deron Williams (10.1 AST/36), Stockton (9.1 AST/36), and Nash (8.5 AST/36) have averaged more than 7 AST/36 during the playoffs with atleast 80 clutch minutes played. As great of a passer as LeBron is, his AST/36 is "only" 5.9 AST during these situations. According to Dipper 13, MJ's career mark is 3.6 AST/36 in these situations and he was at 4.0 AST/36 during the 1997/'98 playoffs.

When you look at Regular Season + Playoff stats, LeBron is actually the best of his era in terms of clutch performance with only Dirk coming close. His career +/- in Clutch situations (Playoffs + Regular Season) is +1046, with Dirk in 2nd place at +927. These two are the only two players since '97 to be +700, so they are just massively ahead of the field. Kobe (+632) and Duncan (+591) are in the Top 5 but still far behind for reference.

So my "Clutch Stats" post isn't meant to discredit LeBron. He's an absolute beast in these situations and has proven it over and over again. However, during high leverage late-game moments like this, Jordan's ability to scale up to an absurd level as a scorer made him a gamebreaker during these situations that even LeBron doesn't quite come close to matching. My post wasn't meant to merely focus on the defined "Clutch" window of +/- 5 pts, it was meant to show a glimpse of performance in high leverage situations when each play has a significantly larger impact on the game than a made bucket to go up 37-24 in the 2nd quarter.

It's just that Individual scoring becomes more and more important as the game-leverage increases at the end of of close games and that's even more of the case in the playoffs. Role players start missing shots they'd make in a regular situations as their legs get tired, the pressure gets to them, and defenders are going all-out on with contesting on defense because they know giving up a basket could lose the game for them. Star offensive players tend to take on a bigger relative rate of the scoring load during these situations because of this. And LeBron definitely came through. Like I said, his 32.3 PTS/36 were the 3rd highest per minute scoring number in the playoffs over the last 24 years to Kobe and Jordan's '97/'98 seasons. However, the data we have on MJ's playoffs clutch scoring and team-level performance in puts him on a completely different level than LeBron or anyone else.

My main point about MJ is that his scoring ability is already considered GOAT-level because of the volume he could take on in an efficient way. However, the Playoffs Clutch stats indicate that MJ had another gear to his already GOAT-level scoring that made him a historically unique offensive weapon and gamebreaker during high leverage moments. He's truly in a league of his own as a scorer which allowed him to be a destroyer of worlds offensively in these situations. Him being on another tier as a scorer from everyone else in league while being a strong passer and defender is why is till voted for him #1. But I totally understand LeBron as #1, he's awesome.

[Doctor MJ]

Wow, I thought I had more time. Reserving this post to cast my vote even though it won't count.

[Doctor MJ]

And the answer to why he wasn't able to keep playing with Hannum is that he chose to leave. Hannum's 76ers would continue to be excellent without Wilt.

I believe this is incorrect.

The coaching position was perhaps in doubt around the time was making his decision regarding leaving. Cherry's Wilt autobiog has the timeline thus.

Hannum announces he's won't return, that going to live on the west coast where his daughters home and business were.
Then via Ramsey it's said the Wilt as coach with Ramsey as X's and O's guy was mooted but then Wilt's head was turned.

Wilt has suggested a rivalry between Hannum and Ramsey (each wanting the other's job? Certainly Ramsey wanting to coach?). I also have the idea that Wilt wanted to coach, might have been okay with Hannum, didn't want Ramsey, but that's not something I can cite right now and may be interpretation ... okay not perfect on the details but Libby's Wilt biog Goliath has it thus

Hannum was unhappy, too. He was no longer satisfied to just coach. He wanted to manage, too, but the 76ers had a manager, Ramsay. Hannum said that when he signed he had "an agreement that Kosloff would consider my nominee for general manager ... A few weeks later Kosloff told some friends of mine,'Well, I didn't have a coach and now I have two.' Translated that meant he had signed Jack Ramsay. I was furious."
Entering his second season Hannum apparently had determined he could not continue beyond it with Ramsey. He later insisted, "I found Jack to be a fine person and a fine general manager." Ramsay has said, "We got along just fine. I just wanted to keep winning."
But Wilt had said, "Alex had little respect for Ramsay. During the final weeks of the season, Alex was spending as much time looking for another coaching job as he was working with the 76ers. You could see he was distracted and not concentrating - and he later admitted as much to me.
Wilt adds, "It was pretty clear to me that Ramsay wanted to be head coch and general manager. It was pretty clear that one of the first things he wanted to do was get rid of me."
Jack Kiser says, "Hannum wanted Ramsey's job and Ramsey wanted Hannum's job. Wilt wanted the coaching job, too, but Ramsay didn't want Wilt. Ramsay has to be the star on Ramsey's teams.

Kiseda also offers that Ramsay did want to coach and didn't want Wilt (and confirms Hannum was off the table, citing unwell wife, marital problems).

In any case it would be Ramsay's 76ers, not Hannum's that would play (well) in '69.

You're right and thank you for the correction. The 76ers would continue to be great but Hannum's ABA championship comes that very year because he'd left.

EDIT: I'd object to the notion that Ramsay needs to be "the star" on his teams. Cunningham, McAdoo, Walton - all of them shined brightly underneath Ramsay. Ramsay was a character who liked attention to be sure, but Ramsay wanted Wilt gone it clearly wasn't because Ramsay didn't want an MVP on his team. There was interpersonal conflict, and looking back on history I think we know that Wilt gave as good as he got and typically did so on issues where the other side had a point.

[trex_8063]

Wow, I thought I had more time. Reserving this post to cast my vote even though it won't count.

Sorry. You know the importance of keeping this project on schedule (given it lasts 8-9 months even when conducted with promptness).

Even if your 1st vote was for Jordan, it wouldn't alter the result.

[PistolPeteJR]

Wow, I’m finding it hard to believe LeBron won this and to be completely honest, I’m scared at how that alone is going to be received by those who consult this list seriously.

I’m sure it will be met with opposition, hate, and disdain by many, but I hold out hope that many will be open-minded to it and truly examine why.

FWIW, I voted for LeBron.

[Gregoire]

Wow, I’m finding it hard to believe LeBron won this and to be completely honest, I’m scared at how that alone is going to be received by those who consult this list seriously.

I’m sure it will be met with opposition, hate, and disdain by many, but I hold out hope that many will be open-minded to it and truly examine why.

FWIW, I voted for LeBron.

I think some "recency bias" and emotions is involved. Lebron just won his 4th ring. Maybe 1 or 2 month later the result would be different.

[Texas Chuck]

Wow, I’m finding it hard to believe LeBron won this and to be completely honest, I’m scared at how that alone is going to be received by those who consult this list seriously.

I’m sure it will be met with opposition, hate, and disdain by many, but I hold out hope that many will be open-minded to it and truly examine why.

FWIW, I voted for LeBron.

I think some "recency bias" and emotions is involved. Lebron just won his 4th ring. Maybe 1 or 2 month later the result would be different.

Last time this board did this project we had multiple posters who got unhappy with the list when it didn't go their way and they caused a lot of trouble. I'm trusting that participants this go around will show more maturity and this won't be an issue.

I believe we had 37 voters. That's a pretty solid sample size and reading though each and every post the process was taken seriously. I sure hope we don't litigate the results after every thread worried about what some might think.

[The Master]

I think some "recency bias" and emotions is involved. Lebron just won his 4th ring. Maybe 1 or 2 month later the result would be different.

Perhaps, but I believe this is how GOAT debate between 'NBA geeks' will look like in near future, without clear-cut no 1 favorite for 1st spot. I don't think there is any poster who would claim that LeBron doesn't have legitimate shot for being number one, even if they voted for Bill, KAJ or MJ. After all these years, my first observation is that these debates between 'more oriented' observers have gotten much less focused on mainstream narratives and more on independent ways of thinking based on different criterias and formulas.

[PistolPeteJR]

Wow, I’m finding it hard to believe LeBron won this and to be completely honest, I’m scared at how that alone is going to be received by those who consult this list seriously.

I’m sure it will be met with opposition, hate, and disdain by many, but I hold out hope that many will be open-minded to it and truly examine why.

FWIW, I voted for LeBron.

I think some "recency bias" and emotions is involved. Lebron just won his 4th ring. Maybe 1 or 2 month later the result would be different.

Last time this board did this project we had multiple posters who got unhappy with the list when it didn't go their way and they caused a lot of trouble. I'm trusting that participants this go around will show more maturity and this won't be an issue.

I believe we had 37 voters. That's a pretty solid sample size and reading though each and every post the process was taken seriously. I sure hope we don't litigate the results after every thread worried about what some might think.

That’s not what I’m saying.

MJ vs LeBron, whether we like it or not, is the hottest topic in sports and isn’t and won’t be quelled. As such, this is a legitimate point to bring up, not met with fear, but with expectation and hope.